New Attachment Models: Where They Came From and What They Mean for Relationships

Monday, February 10, 2025.

For decades, attachment theory has shaped the way we understand human relationships, from infancy to romantic partnerships.

Originating from John Bowlby’s (1969, 1982) work in the mid-20th century and further developed by Mary Ainsworth’s (1978) famous "Strange Situation" experiments, attachment theory has long categorized folks into Secure, Anxious, Avoidant, or Disorganized attachment styles.

However, as psychological research has expanded, new attachment models have emerged, challenging and refining these classic categories (Fraley & Roisman, 2019).

The Foundations of Attachment Theory

The original Attachment Theory posited that our early experiences with caregivers form a blueprint for future relationships (Bowlby, 1969).

Secure Attachment, fostered by responsive and consistent caregiving, leads to healthy emotional regulation and stable relationships (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Conversely, insecure attachments—Anxious, Avoidant, or Disorganized—stem from inconsistent, neglectful, or even traumatic childhood experiences (Main & Solomon, 1990).

While Bowlby and Ainsworth laid the groundwork, later researchers, including Hazan and Shaver (1987), applied Attachment Theory to adult relationships, showing that our childhood attachment patterns continue into our romantic lives.

However, newer research suggests that these categories may be too rigid, failing to account for the fluidity of attachment behaviors over time and in different contexts (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Earned Secure Attachment

Research has shown that attachment is not set in stone.

Those who have experienced insecure attachment in childhood can develop a Secure Attachment style later in life through healthy relationships or therapy (Roisman et al., 2002). This concept, known as "Earned Secure Attachment," suggests that attachment is malleable and responsive to change.

This has profound implications for couples therapy, as it underscores the potential for relationship growth rather than deterministic labels.

Studies indicate that partners who engage in reflective practices, emotional validation, and consistent secure behaviors can help each other shift toward greater attachment security (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016).

Emerging Models of Attachment

The Dimensional Model of Attachment

Rather than classifying us into rigid categories, researchers like Fraley and Waller (1998) have advocated for a dimensional approach. This model conceptualizes attachment as a spectrum, with two primary dimensions:

• Attachment Anxiety: The extent to which someone fears abandonment and seeks reassurance.

• Attachment Avoidance: The extent to which someone is uncomfortable with emotional closeness and dependency.

Instead of labeling folks as “Anxious” or “Avoidant,” this model mercifully suggests that people fall on a continuum, with different levels of both traits. This allows for greater nuance and acknowledges that attachment styles can shift based on relationship experiences and therapeutic interventions (Simpson & Rholes, 2017).

The Polyvagal Theory and Attachment

Stephen Porges’ Polyvagal Theory (1994) has added a neurobiological dimension to attachment research.

Porges posits that our autonomic nervous system (ANS) plays a crucial role in attachment behaviors.

Secure Attachment correlates with a well-regulated ventral vagal system, promoting social engagement and safety. In contrast, Anxious or Avoidant Attachment can be linked to heightened sympathetic (fight-or-flight) or dorsal vagal (shutdown) responses.

This insight bridges Attachment Theory with physiological regulation, reinforcing the idea that attachment work isn’t just cognitive—it’s also embodied.

Therapies such as Somatic Experiencing and EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) have been shown to help clients recalibrate their nervous system responses, fostering healthier attachment behaviors (Siegel, 2012).

The Attachment-Based Model of Relationship Dependence

Some researchers have argued that traditional Attachment Theory places too much emphasis on early childhood while neglecting the broader social and cultural influences on relationships.

The Attachment-Based Model of Relationship Dependence, explored in work by Simpson and Rholes (2017), highlights how life events, societal expectations, and even technological shifts (such as online dating and social media) influence attachment patterns.

For instance, the “Attachment Paradox” in the digital age suggests that despite increased connectivity, people report higher rates of loneliness and attachment insecurity (Zhong, 2020). Apps like Tinder and Bumble encourage an Avoidant Attachment dynamic, where relationships are often viewed as disposable.

Implications for Couples and Therapists

New attachment models emphasize that attachment is not a fixed trait but a dynamic process that evolves. This has several important takeaways:

• Therapy Can Change Attachment: Whether through couples therapy, individual therapy, or mindful relationship practices, insecure attachment styles can shift toward security (Johnson, 2004).

• Context Matters: Your attachment behaviors in one relationship may not be the same in another. Life circumstances, personal growth, and relational dynamics all influence attachment security (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

• Regulating the Nervous System is Key: Polyvagal-informed approaches suggest that fostering a sense of safety through co-regulation (calm, secure interactions) is critical in attachment repair (Porges, 2009).

• Digital Culture is Reshaping Attachment: The rise of ghosting, breadcrumbing, and commitment aversion may reflect an increase in Avoidant Attachment tendencies in modern dating culture (Zhong, 2020).

Final Thoughts: The Future of Attachment Research

Don’t get me wrong. Original Recipe Attachment Theory remains the most dominant framework for understanding human relationships, but crunchy and extra crispy new research is refining our understanding.

Most therapists and clients need to understand the biggest takeaway here:

These emerging models suggest that attachment is more fluid, context-dependent, and neurologically embedded than previously thought.

For couples and families, this means that attachment wounds are not destiny.

Through conscious effort, emotional safety, and the right therapeutic interventions, we can reshape our attachment patterns and cultivate deeper, more secure connections.

As research continues, we might even see even more sophisticated models that integrate neuroscience, relational psychology, and social influences to better explain the complexities of human attachment. Perhaps then we can dispense with Attachment Style Astrology, and similar half-baked ideas.

Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2019). The development of adult attachment: Four lessons. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 26–30.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.

Porges, S. W. (1994). Orienting in a defensive world: Mammalian modifications of our evolutionary heritage. Psychophysiology, 31(4), 301-318.

Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2017). Attachment theory and close relationships. Guilford Press.

Zhong, B. (2020). Social media use and attachment insecurity: A cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(4), 1115-1132.